Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday July 09, 2011 @02:40PM
from the what-about-the-congressional-monopoly? dept.

bonch writes "Following a threat of subpoena, Google chairman Eric Schmidt will be testifying at a Senate antitrust subcommittee in September. Google has denied acting anticompetitively and cites its success as the cause of the increased scrutiny. The Federal Trade Commission and European Commission have both launched antitrust investigations into the company, and the Justice Department is also conducting a criminal probe into their acceptance of ads from rogue web pharmacies, an investigation Google has set aside $500 million to settle."

Given that they track EVERYTHING you do, and there are other competing search engines which do not do that, why would anyone use google any more?

If google is a monopoly (not saying they are or are not), they are so because it's what people made them. This isn't like Standard Oil where one company can make it impossible to buy from others. There are a bunch of search engines just a URL away. Google hasn't removed them from the internet.

...how is that even possible? IE was pre-installed and impossible to completely remove. How is Chrome anywhere near as "intrusive" as that? Not only that but Google never forces you to install Chrome to use any of their services.

How do you mean? Are there websites which require you to use to Chrome to access them? Has Google intentionally broken standards in Chrome to "enhance" its users web experience? Does GMail or any of Google's other services turn you away if you're not using Chrome? Does Google use undocumented APIs to make Chrome run faster than other browsers? Is Chrome so deeply embedded in the OS (on purpose) that you can't uninstall it completely without using a third party hack?

You're raving, and clearly have a rage-on for Google. I only bother to respond at all in case anyone takes you seriously.

Are there websites which require you to use to Chrome to access them? Yes.

What websites require Chrome? They are in a process of requiring standards-compliant browsers, including dropping IE6, but that's a very far cry from requiring a specific browser. And in any case, they aren't even blocking IE6 - just not supporting it, so parts of the page might not work perfectly. But that's IE6's problem.

Come on, moderators, sober up! This guy was aiming for "funny", and definitely not "insightful".
It's hard to think of a less insightful premise or a more false comparison. Chrome must be installed voluntarily (unlike IE), can be removed completely (unlike IE), and is neutral regarding other services from its maker (unlike IE). Hell, Chrome even has an open-source version - Chromium (stunningly unlike IE).

That bar appears on multiple Google services and never goes away unless you log into an account or run Chrome. The only reason Chrome exists is to get more users onto their closed-source search and advertising platform, which is why it defaults to their search engine, for example.

" Google is also evilly leveraging their monopoly position to get marketshare in other areas."

Yes, but why do the HAVE that monopoly? Because people give it to them voluntarily.

I'm bewildered by this. When google-analytics and google-syndication started showing up on every web page on the planet, why did everybody keep letting themselves be tracked? Why not block them? Why still use google's search, at all, given it's nature?

Google is only as evil as WE allow them to be. Stop giving them business, and

Google is only as evil as WE allow them to be. Stop giving them business, and they won't be able to abuse their position. If you keep giving them business in spite of their near-monopoly, then don't complain when the obvious abuse happens.

Microsoft is only as evil as WE allow them to be. Stop giving them business, and they won't be able to abuse their position. If you keep giving them business in spite of their near-monopoly, then don't complain when the obvious abuse happens.

There is still an important difference, known as the "Microsoft tax". It's difficult to find a computer without Windows installed, mostly because of Microsoft's licensing policies to OEMs. Google has a monopoly because people (the end users) voluntarily choose their services. Microsoft has a monopoly because of agreements with other large companies, not because of the users' choice.

Google is also evilly leveraging their monopoly position to get marketshare in other areas. The very same thing that Microsoft did in the 90's.

Just to correct a critical part of your argument: in the 90's there was essentially no viable alternative to Microsoft's monopoly OS; however, there are any number of alternative web search services as viable alternatives to Google. To the extent that Google has a monopoly, it is one they are either (i) voluntarily granted by consumers, or (ii) retain only by inertia. Either way, the alternatives in search are viable and a Google monopoly can persist only if the alternatives are worse. This is in stark contrast to the Microsoft monopoly, which was truly evil (and apparently still strives to remain a monopoly).

Not to mention that it cost businesses a whole lot of money to switch away from Microsoft. It doesn't cost me anything to type in the URL of an alternate search engine. The only reason I stopped using AltaVista when Google came out was because Google's search results were much better. People figured out how to abuse the meta tag system and Google's algorithm side-stepped that abuse. Give me another minimalist-design search engine that does what Google does better and I'll use that instead (as long as it isn't owned or partnered with Microsoft or Oracle, that is).

In the 90s I would always get so angry when Bill Gates said stuff like, "The government is trying to punish us for our success." That was bullshit and he knew it. But that statement seems valid when applied to Google today. These politicians are in the pocket of Google's competitors. Namely, Microsoft.

Hopefully Schmidt sticks it to these fuckers on camera: "Well, gee, Senator, what I'd like to know is why you're on this panel when you take such large campaign donations from my largest competitors. Don't you think there's a conflict of interest here?"

Oh you mean like Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with their operating system, then setting the default page to msn.com and setting the default search engine to bing?

Not to mention my grandpa bought a computer from Best Buy and they sent Geek Squad out to set it up for him. They showed him how to use MSN and bing and gave him a new Windows Live e-mail address and showed him how to use that. I wonder how much Microsoft is paying for that?

Name one example please, of Google "leveraging their monopoly position to get marketshare in other areas".

Compare and contrast a few things

- Microsoft forced users to install IE. They shipped it with the OS and did not allow you to not install it. Furthermore, they wrote key web properties of theirs like OWA and Windows Update to only function in IE.

- Whereas, if you go to Google.com or YouTube.com, the word Chrome is not even mentioned most of the time. Sometimes, OCCASIONALLY, they have a link to download

Furthermore, they wrote key web properties of theirs like OWA and Windows Update to only function in IE.

I can't imagine how you could implement a standards compliant web based software update system really, so that argument is a wash. But thank fuck they did write OWA to only work in IE - you realise the Microsoft Exchange team actually invented XMLHTTPRequest for use in OWA, right? That lock-in created one of the most useful (open!) web technologies available today.

The problem is using their monopoly to force their way into other markets and become the de facto standard in those markets. Sort of like Microsoft forcing everybody but MS Office out of the word-processing and spreadsheet markets.

Google's been doing very similar things with their search engine dominance, if you look at a lot of the other markets they've expanded into recently.

Sort of like Microsoft forcing everybody but MS Office out of the word-processing and spreadsheet markets.

You really should learn a little more about what you are talking about. Lotus screwed themselves with numerous law suits against competing spreadsheet makers."Lotus petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's opinion in a 4-4 anonymous tie vote, with Justice Stevens recusing.[6] Lotus's petition for a rehearing by the full court was denied. By the time the lawsuit ended, Borland had sold Quattro Pro to Novell, and Microsoft's Excel spre

You left out the part where Microsoft used hidden program hooks, undocumented, in their OS to make it so that Lotus couldn't perform as well as Office (whose development team had access to ALL of the operating system and optimized calls).

The same crap Microsoft did to Netscape when they started trying to take over with Internet Explorer.

You conveniently forget that it is Microsoft's OS. Microsoft is not the first, nor will it be the last to have undocumented calls/procedures in its code whether it is an operating system or a simple application. Microsoft spent upwards of 2 million dollars to develop a better spreedsheet/word processor while others where either wasting their time in court or engaging in internal corporate in-fighting. Plus, Microsoft made the applications work seamlessly together. Something at that stage of program developm

Try Kubuntu, with Crossover Linux (née Crossover Office), if you must run Office. You're likely to be pleasantly surprised. (I type this while waiting Win 7 Pro to complete a five-minute software install for my MS LifeCam Cinema. This camera worked out-of-the-box with Kubuntu.)

Oh bullshit. That thing in 2009 was about making it so the.NET Framework could actually work with Firefox. You know, compatibility? It's not fucking sabotaging at all.

You goddamn zealots bitch if Microsoft doesn't work to make things compatible (*ooh, I can't use this ClickOnce bullshit in Firefox, Microsoft is an evil monopoly*) and you bitch if they do work to make things compatible (*ooh, Microsoft installed a plugin to Firefox to make ClickOnce work, Microsoft is an evil monopoly*).

For example, go to Google and type in "mortgage interest rates." Google gives itself the #1 ad, at the very top. Additionally, it allows itself three lines for the ad text beneath the headline (which no other Adwords advertiser can have), it has that special "compare rates" button (which no other Adwords user can have), and it allows itself to have its ad copy in columns, which are also against Adwords' rules.

The keyword "mortgage interest rates" is extremely valuable, and Google is leveraging its monopoly

Given that they track EVERYTHING you do, and there are other competing search engines which do not do that, why would anyone use google any more?

Why would I care if they track my searches? Will they e-mail porn searches to my parents? Because that would be rather awkward, but otherwise it doesn't matter.

There are search engines that don't track me, have equal or better methods of keeping junk from polluting the top hits, don't actually track me, don't have intrusive ads, and scout's honor don't really track me? Well then, I'll use them if I have any reason to.

because they'll optimize the next searches. or "optimize" rather - you know what you end up if you do that? optimizing you to visit the sites that have the same fucking adverts as the last site, optimizing your search results to actually be rather stale, optimizing them to be from "near you" when in fact you don't want your coding googling to be optimized at all. and when you click a link it'll count that as a succesful search hit, despite you not knowing if it's a site full of spam or not. it makes their s

I'm going to take a stab at this.. People who use Google first and foremost like the bulk of their products for how well they work and their simplicity. Google aims to make things generally as lightweight, streamlined and efficient as possible and I think that strikes a chord with a lot of people. As for the tracking, well I think a lot of people honestly just don't care that much, and if the other primary search engine being Bing then I'm guessing people are choosing the lesser of two.. "evils" for lack of

Given that they track EVERYTHING you do, and there are other competing search engines which do not do that.

I want to know what search engine you speak of. I mean WTF we live in the age of the all seeing eye (corp and gov) watching eveything you do. And don't EVEN get me started on corporations monetizing data with or without your consent. What company can be trusted to do the right thing anymore. I use Google products because their products work...well. I don't believe I can trust a corporation to not track my every move online and sell it to the highest bidder. I'm not trying to call you out or anything. I'm ju

Ain't that the truth. Talk all you want about Microsoft; however, at least they have a real, live, functioning telephone number.

MS: What is the nature of your call sir?
Caller: We'd like to get a representative of your company to show up to a senate hearing.
MS: That'll be $200 for an incident report sir, would you like me to charge your credit card?

Try calling about hotmail and see how far you get... My LiveID on windows isnt accepting my password anymore, but my Xbox will happily sign on with the same credentials. Hotmails solution is a ticket-in-forum weirdness that asks a bunch of questions that i really dont know that answer to because i only ever use that account because MS requires it for LIVE.

Not really, antitrust lawsuits are about keeping the market competitive. Unfortunately for much of the last decade the DoJ has been looking the other way when companies like Google have behaved in anticompetitive ways, but it is still a serious issue to anybody that wants quality service.

Mergers rarely if ever benefit the consumer, most of the time they're more about eliminating pesky competition and sleeping in a bed stuffed with hundreds.

The problem, of course, is that testifying before the Senate is a lose-lose situation.

These are public events that are really grandstanding occasions for senators to work on soundbites for their campaigns. Whoever is "testifying" is just a target for those soundbites. Play target well, and they will shoot you down - "look, we politicians are for the common man and against big business". Defend yourself effectively - show the Senators to be wrong or (more likely) totally uninformed - and suffer the dagger through the cloak instead of the public hanging.

Exactly. There is no reason for Schmidt, Brin, or Page to personally appear at these hearings other than to get the press to cover the event. The senators know that no one in the media will show up for a hearing with some random 'Google representative.' They also know that it would be bad for the press to show up for the hearing with some random 'Google representative' because that representative will probably be the best person suited for the occasion (a lawyer), meaning he will talk circles around them an

Wasn't Google one of the companies crybabying about Microsoft's "monopoly"? I find this satisfyingly hilarious. Ordinarily I'd side with Google in this matter, unless you have control over a physically limited resource you don't have a real monopoly. But in this case I'll make an exception - nail Google to the cross, Johnny Trust Busters!

Does anyone have an example of a single instance where Google used it's dominance in one area of the market to unfairly achieve dominance in another? Because that is the definition of Anti-trust. Simply being very good at your market, or entering a lot of markets, does not define anti-trust.

I can't even really THINK of two markets Google is dominant in. They have their fingers in a lot of pies, sure, but the only market they are really dominant in is search/online advertising.